This July 2014 report by Scientists for Global Responsibility and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and concludes:

In this briefing, we have summarised key evidence concerning the environmental, health and wellbeing, and socio-economic aspects of fracking for shale gas in the UK. In particular, we have critically examined some of the most common industry and government claims, drawing extensively on independent academic and expert literature. We have found several areas of concern.

Regulation of the industry in the UK is currently inadequate, although it is stricter than in the US, thus somewhat reducing the potential for local environmental impact by comparison. With technological advances and an improved regulatory environment, groundwater contamination risks could conceivably be reduced to an acceptable level, although there is much to do to reach that point. Furthermore, the requirement for vast quantities of freshwater (expected to become scarcer under climate change), which require road transportation, is unlikely to be resolved. Confidence in the practice is undermined by a series of disingenuous claims made by both the Government and industry.

Virtually all economic analysts refute the claim that fracking will reduce energy bills in the UK. Instead, it will lock us into continued reliance on fossil fuels and the increasingly volatile and expensive international gas market. Although fracking will generate jobs, job leakage is probable, and it may result in job losses in other industries, for example, agriculture and tourism. The job creation potential has been substantially exaggerated, and is also significantly less than that of the low-carbon energy sector, which itself may suffer from diversion of investment to shale gas. Community benefits have also been exaggerated, while the substantial policing costs do not generally feature in the discussion. There is also some evidence of house prices having fallen near fracking sites.

Given that, even without shale gas, proven global reserves of fossil fuels are five times higher than can be burned without risking a 2°C global temperature rise, the exploitation of shale gas is dangerous and unnecessary. It is true that, assuming minimal methane leakage, shale gas might have a lower carbon footprint than coal. However, in the absence of a global cap on emissions, the use of shale gas will undoubtedly be in addition to, not instead of, coal, and will therefore result in an overall increase in emissions. Until such a constraint on emissions is in place, this problem remains unresolved.

This page summarises the position on fracking in different countries around the world.

Of course, being part of wikipedia, it is always useful to check for other sources.

But until we find those, the excerpt on German policy is highly instructive:

“Massive hydraulic fracturing of gas wells in tight sandstone began in Germany in 1975, and became common during the period 1978-1985, when more wells received massive hydraulic fracs in Germany than in any other European country. Germany also had the largest hydraulic fracturing jobs in Europe, using up to 650 tonnes of proppant per well. Most German fracs used water- or oil-based gels.[22] The most popular target formation for hydraulic fracturing was the Rotliegend Sandstone. Hydraulically fractured wells are today the source of most of German natural gas production.[23]

“In February 2013, the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel announced draft regulations that would allow for the exploitation of shale gas deposits using the same fracking techniques common in the U.S., with the exception only of wetland areas that make up just over 10% of German territory. The draft legislation had come from the Federal Department of Economics, then headed by the party head ofMerkels coalition partner, the pro-business free Democracts.[24] This policy was said to be motivated by fears that consistently high energy costs were harming German industry, facing competitors for example from the U.S. where energy prices had shrunk to less than 25% of German energy costs.[25]

“However these plans immediately drew massive critique both from opposition parties and elements of Merkel’s own CDU, as well as from major NGOs, large parts of the press and the general public. Within less than a month, the original plan was put on ice for the foreseeable future and a moratorium was declared. Ever since shale gas fracking has de facto been banned in Germany and the stance of the newly formed Grand Coalition government expressed in the coalition treaty is that unconventional gas exploration will not be pursued in the country under this government. Here is an excerpt from the coalition contract:[26](more…)

For reference, here is the government’s own policy on how it is planning to enable fracking in AONBs, National Parks, and even World Heritage Sites.

The policy should of course be “We will not consider fracking in these areas under any circumstances. These areas are special and we must keep and protect them as such. Anyone who has needs energy must find an alternative solution, rather than damaging or destroying any of these unique areas.”

“Barclays Bank is backing the search for shale gas in Yorkshire and could fund fracking in the area as early as next year [ie 2014!, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.” (Nov. 2013)

“Third Energy, which is 97pc-owned by Barclays Natural Resource Investments, a private equity arm of the bank, took shale rock samples while drilling in Kirby Misperton, Ryedale, this summer and is now analysing their potential.” (more…)

The website is written by someone who understands the process — an expert in the field.

The first headline is “Loss of livelihood, sickness and death”. The second “A parent’s worst nightmare”. Then “Building the legal case: Breaking ground to protect nature”, “Persistence in the face of ridicule”, “Canada’s political disconnect”…

Energy Minister Matthew Hancock was unable to name a single village that supports fracking, as a leading scientist warns that 1,000 successful wells a year would be needed to meet the daily demand for gas.

The fracking expert said it would be years before companies in Britain could sink enough wells to make any impact on the domestic energy market.

“When I met Louise Hutchins, Greenpeace spokesperson on Energy and Climate change at the weekend, she told me that China is only two years away from making green energy products that will be competitively priced with fossil fuels. But guess what you can’t make the huge profits out of sun and wind power so the big energy companies aren’t interested! This article does not categorically state that there will never be fracking in National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, I think they are still keeping the door open. But the government are shocked to find large swathes of the country are against fracking, what a surprise ! even in the desolate north east!!!“

Meanwhile, our governmentwill give the go-ahead on Monday [today] for a big expansion of fracking across Britain that will allow drilling in national parks and other protected areas in “exceptional circumstances”. Source: Guardian

This in spite of the known fact, as this article says very clearly, that by 2020 solar electricity will be competitive with fossil fuel electricity for 80% of the world’s population.

Solar electricity already is competitive for people who live in sunny countries. Within 6 years that will have spread to include less sunny countries like ours.